Friday, April 25, 2008

I know I'm supposed to be a racist and all,

but it occurs to me that, faced with a culture in which parents routinely kill their children, at least the government of India has actually come out and asked them to stop.

In Britain, we're still waiting.

Mrs Chowdhury said that emergency measures were necessary as evidence indicated that the practice of aborting or killing female children was spreading.

“It is a matter of international and national shame for us that India, with a growth of nine per cent, still kills its daughters,” she said.

The practice has also caused an alarming gender imbalance in India’s population, she said. The number of girls born per 1,000 boys born fell from 945 to 927 between 1991 and 2001, according to the latest Indian census figures. Many districts report as few as 800 girls for every 1,000 boys.

To try to correct the imbalance, Mrs Chowdhury said that the Government would adopt unwanted girls and raise them in a network of special homes.

“What we are saying to the people is have your children, don’t kill them. And if you don’t want a girl child, leave her to us,” she said.

The Government says that it is clamping down on doctors flouting the law that bans prenatal sex determination tests, and a national campaign with the slogan, “My strength, my Daughter”, was launched late last year to encourage more parents to protect their infant daughters.

(And off topic for a moment, when did it become the fashion in journalism to leave off the dot, period or whatever you call it, when the short form of honourifics is given. "Mrs" nowadays, and never "Mrs." Is it because we have forgotten that it is an abbreviation?)


Anonymous said...

As Indian culture emerges into the light, British culture falls apart and our people fall into darkness. I'd guess that we're only still waiting for legislation against killing infants because up until recently it was incomprehensible to do it. The Frankfurt School and friends changed all that, of course, and it's the effects of that change that're in our way.

For now.

Anonymous said...

Can you believe some people don't believe in the death penalty?

Anonymous said...

Hello Hilary.

I think you were going to email me, but I got sick for three weeks recently and I may have missed your email.

If you still want to chat, I am at

Despite my Irish surname, I am half-English by origin. I have always admired the English. They would have made great Catholics.


Anonymous said...

They were great Catholics and will be again.

Smithy, did anyone ever tell you that Eyore was the least interesting and appealing character in Winnie the Pooh?

Just sayin.

Anonymous said...

sorry, but I've long since completely forgotten what I wanted to ask you. It's that attention span thing again...

But it is nice to see you hanging about in my commbox.

Jeff said...

IS it really still an abbreviation?

Anonymous said...

To be picky, "Mrs" is a contraction. And therefore a period/full stop is not warranted.

Contrast "Thos.", which is an abbreviation of "Thomas" and accordingly needs the stop.

Anonymous said...

Aagh. "Thos" is a contraction also.

Try "Jos." as an abbreviation of "Joseph".

Anonymous said...

I'm back from Sicily! 'Twas wonderful and I am doubly glad we are talking about something philological.

Mrs. , Jos. , Thos. , are all abbreviations, of which, there are three types:

1. Truncation/Suspension

When only the first element of the word is present (or first letter) followed by the symbol which indicates an abbreviation (in English, always the period.)

for example St. for "street" is a truncation.

All acronyms are truncations, like U.K. or U.S.A

2. Contraction

When one or several letters/syyllables are missing from the middle, followed by the symbol which indicates an abbreviation (in English, always the period.)

for example St. for "saint" , or Mr. for "mister" or Mrs. ; Miss. etc.

3. By a symbol

& for "and" or 1 for "one" are all examples of abbreviation by symbol.

In this particular case, the symbol which indicates an abbreviation, (in English, always the period,) does not follow.

Anyone who refuses to submit to 1500 years of palaeographical and typographical convention should be either mercilessly mocked or thoroughly ignored.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Back from Sicily eh?

Where are my lessons?!